Language of document :

Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19, Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

(Case C-725/20 P)

Language of the case: Italian


Appellants: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi, Cristiana Muscardini, Luigi Vinci, Agostino Mantovani, Anna Catasta, Vanda Novati, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Maria Di Meo, Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Raffaele Lombardo, Olivier Dupuis, Leda Frittelli, Livio Filippi, Vincenzo Viola, Antonio Mussa, Mauro Nobilia, Sergio Camillo Segre, Stefano De Luca, Riccardo Ventre, Mirella Musoni, Francesco Iacono, Vito Bonsignore, Claudio Azzolini, Vincenzo Aita, Mario Mantovani, Vincenzo Mattina, Romano Maria La Russa, Giorgio Carollo, Fiammetta Cucurnia, on her own behalf and as heir of Giulietto Chiesa, Roberto Costanzo, Giorgio Gallenzi, as heir of Giulio Cesare Gallenzi, Vitaliano Gemelli, Pasqualina Napoletano and Ida Panusa (represented by: M. Merola, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

refer Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament, back to the General Court for examination of the merits;

annul the decisions at issue as regards the appellants other than Ms Panusa;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in law in so far as it considered that the decisions contested before it were unconnected to the right to a pension and had no impact thereon, and accordingly held that those decisions comply with the general principles and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The error is the result of an abstract and arbitrary distinction having been made between the right to a pension and the right to pension benefits. The decisions at issue adversely affected the right to a pension itself, thus infringing not only the rules set out in the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members, but also the right to property, and conflicting with the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court made various errors of law in assessing the procedural grounds for annulment put forward by them as applicants at first instance, with particular reference to (i) the identification of the correct legal basis for the decisions at issue, (ii) the authority of the Head of Unit who adopted the measure and (iii) failure to state sufficient reasons. The General Court should have found that the decisions at issue are based on a provision that has now been repealed and, since they are classified as extraordinary administrative measures, should have been adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. Moreover, the General Court unduly extended the possibility of stating reasons by reference to other documents. The statement of reasons is not in fact contained in the decisions at issue but only in an opinion of the European Parliament’s Legal Service to which there is not even an explicit reference in the decisions at issue or in the preparatory acts.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellant who was the applicant in Case T-453/19 claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that her action was inadmissible on the ground of a lack of interest in bringing proceedings. She claims that the General Court did not consider the possibility that the pension benefit she receives had a different legal basis, even though this was discussed during the hearing. Since that different legal basis would guarantee the appellant a higher benefit, it cannot be denied that she has an interest in bringing proceedings.